Bill Murray will never appear in another Ghostbusters sequel. Mark my words.
Yeah. He's done.
I wish they'd slimed him one last time.
I did quite like it tho. A lot more then I expected I would. Chris Hemsworth was really funny. Couldn't take my eyes of Kate McKinnon. Melissa McCarthy is quite annoying in general. I don't relate it at all to the originals, it's its own thing and that's fine with me. I rate it below the originals, but it never was gonna be as good for me. Still fun tho.
This seems like a movie that will just disapper. It got unfairly trashed early and a lot of people wanted it to work (for various reasons) but in the end, it will just be an ok movie.
It got beat by a cartoon in week one and a 2nd Star Trek reboot sequel in week two.
Sure there will probably be more Ghostbusters but with increasingly dimishing returns.
Interesting that the only execs in Hollywood that think the movie is doing well is Sony. Box-office analysts and rival studios are skeptical that Sony has relaunched the GB franchise. $46 million is a very weak start for a movie with a production budget of $144 million. Ideally it should have opened to $60 million+. Ghostbusters now has to earn $375 to $400 million worldwide to break even for Sony which means it needs to do sizable business overseas, and looks like it will top out in the $130 million range domestically. To further hurt its global BO, the film isn't going to open in China at all (neither did the original). The film isn't going to recover.
As for the film itself? From what I hear, every male character in this movie is either inept, a creep, or the butt of a joke. Sounds a bit misandrist to me. Chris Hemsworth is the vacuous eye candy, Andy Garcia as the Mayor of NY is a pompous and incompetent buffoon, and the villain is a disaffected loser who lashes out at the world because it won't validate him so he turns into a giant version of the movie's logo ghost and gets busted in the balls for the win...
Many reviewers say this film is entirely serviceable, but only occasionally fun and often joyless, like it was 'good enough' just to cast four women in traditionally male roles. Sounds more like pasteurized, processed, homogenized, "safe" comedy enriched with fake controversy for your consuming pleasure. Even Bill Murray wasn't funny. How is that even possible? Glad my teenage daughter had no interest. She saw 'Lights Out' instead.
Interesting that the only execs in Hollywood that think the movie is doing well is Sony. Box-office analysts and rival studios are skeptical that Sony has relaunched the GB franchise. $46 million is a very weak start for a movie with a production budget of $144 million. Ideally it should have opened to $60 million+. Ghostbusters now has to earn $375 to $400 million worldwide to break even for Sony which means it needs to do sizable business overseas, and looks like it will top out in the $130 million range domestically. To further hurt its global BO, the film isn't going to open in China at all (neither did the original). The film isn't going to recover.
As for the film itself? From what I hear, every male character in this movie is either inept, a creep, or the butt of a joke. Sounds a bit misandrist to me. Chris Hemsworth is the vacuous eye candy, Andy Garcia as the Mayor of NY is a pompous and incompetent buffoon, and the villain is a disaffected loser who lashes out at the world because it won't validate him so he turns into a giant version of the movie's logo ghost and gets busted in the balls for the win...
Many reviewers say this film is entirely serviceable, but only occasionally fun and often joyless, like it was 'good enough' just to cast four women in traditionally male roles. Sounds more like pasteurized, processed, homogenized, "safe" comedy enriched with fake controversy for your consuming pleasure. Even Bill Murray wasn't funny. How is that even possible? Glad my teenage daughter had no interest. She saw 'Lights Out' instead.
Next.
Given how much time and effort you've spent posting in this thread, this is a poor finale to the story. Hopefully when this thread is recast with women in the lead roles it will have a better conclusion.
So, is anyone calling for the end of the Star Trek franchise? I ask, since, statistically speaking, the percentage of its opening domestic gross as compared to its budget is exactly the same as that of the new Ghostbusters (with all those scary women...)
So, is anyone calling for the end of the Star Trek franchise? I ask, since, statistically speaking, the percentage of its opening domestic gross as compared to its budget is exactly the same as that of the new Ghostbusters (with all those scary women...)
Yes, I am - but only the movie aspect of the franchise. The films and new continuity are dreadful.
So, is anyone calling for the end of the Star Trek franchise? I ask, since, statistically speaking, the percentage of its opening domestic gross as compared to its budget is exactly the same as that of the new Ghostbusters (with all those scary women...)
Yes, I am - but only the movie aspect of the franchise. The films and new continuity are dreadful.
I am excited about the new television show.
I know this is a discussion for another thread, but aside from the death swap in ST:ITD, I actually like this new series of movies. Granted, I've never been a Star Trek fan.
So, is anyone calling for the end of the Star Trek franchise? I ask, since, statistically speaking, the percentage of its opening domestic gross as compared to its budget is exactly the same as that of the new Ghostbusters (with all those scary women...)
I don't think so, but it is having the weakest outing of the 3 new films in the rebooted franchise which has executives calling the the 3rd best opening... the spin is strong with this one. We'll see. This franchise has a lot iterations and a lot of staying power and it isn't merely a reboot of a 32 year old beloved film (Ghostbusters).
Also a a production cost of $185M, Star Trek Beyond will be fine, particularly since the Skydance/Bad Robot series has spiked the franchise’s appeal overseas, moving its international B.O. from $128M to $238.6M. In addition, Paramount received $75 million in TV, digital, and social media promotional support from U.S. brand partners: Hewlett Packard Enterprise, VIZIO, Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans, Bing, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Eastern Airlines provided a 737 Star Trek Beyond branded plane to jet the cast to the world premiere in San Diego. China will also boost the BO for this movie in substantial ways. I think it has a lot more going for it than GB.
Also a a production cost of $185M, Star Trek Beyond will be fine, particularly since the Skydance/Bad Robot series has spiked the franchise’s appeal overseas, moving its international B.O. from $128M to $238.6M. In addition, Paramount received $75 million in TV, digital, and social media promotional support from U.S. brand partners: Hewlett Packard Enterprise, VIZIO, Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans, Bing, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Eastern Airlines provided a 737 Star Trek Beyond branded plane to jet the cast to the world premiere in San Diego. China will also boost the BO for this movie in substantial ways. I think it has a lot more going for it than GB.
I believe they are saying what the distributors reported. I am also sure that there were probably boat loads of toys distributed to retailers. Doesn't mean consumers are buying them. Ae you saying I'm completely wrong?
I believe they are saying what the distributors reported. I am also sure that there were probably boat loads of toys distributed to retailers. Doesn't mean consumers are buying them. Ae you saying I'm completely wrong?
No, they are reporting on sales. Not distribution. This is not about unreturnable comics in the direct market. They are reporting on sales. I trust Variety to understand what the word "selling" means, and to use it accurately. And if they are going to run a story about how these toys are selling better than expected, that they mean exactly that.
Exactly what it sounds like. That they are selling better than expected. Well enough to be worthy of Variety-- who reports on the business-- to report on in this way. Here is their lede:
Mattel is reporting strong early sales for its line of toys based on the female-led “Ghostbusters” — from both boys and girls.
Again, Variety chose to run this article. They don't seem to think that Mattel is lying. Or that the retailers are going to refute what Mattel is claiming. Are you? Are you saying they are logrolling rather than reporting?
Because, I've got to be honest, right now, with this kind of skepticism on a pretty straightforward report in a trade like this, you sound like those people who accuse Disney of paying off critics for positive reviews of Marvel movies.
Glad you're being honest right now. I assure you I've never suspected that Disney paid off any critics to call BvS the turd that it was.
“We’re thrilled with the response to the new ‘Ghostbusters’ toy line,” said Joe Lawandus, senior VP of design and marketing for Mattel’s Toy Box. “We worked closely with Sony to ensure each figure featured authentic details from the movie including a wearable proton pack. The early momentum shows the product is resonating with ‘Ghostbusters’ fans!”
Mattel could also be posturing to appease their own shareholders, which makes it hard to judge just how well the new film performed or the toys for that matter.
I realize it goes against your predisposed conclusion to do so, but if you want anecdotal reports search "Ghostbuster toy sales" and see how many 'news' outlets are parroting this report despite it showing no evidence of its claims. Just saying toy sales were "better than expected" could simply mean "expectations were pretty low" and when the toys are on clearance before the film even comes out, I'm guessing expectations were indeed quite low. The lack of secondary market demand indicates this to be the case.
Your mileage may vary.
Here are week #2 at the box office for comparisons...
@bralinator Those reading along can judge for themselves who has a predisposed conclusion at play.
At the end of the day, I am predisposed to believe that an exec at Mattel- that is the source, not the filmmakers or movie studio- would not risk their relationship with Variety and credibility overall by claiming that one of their licensed products had strong early sales, and that was also quoted. Not just exceeding expectations-- if that was not the case. There is too little for Mattel to gain to run the risk of embarrassing themselves if the retailers refuted the claim.
If you want to believe otherwise, then so it goes.
Okay, thanks David. I will believe what I see with my own eyes instead of everything an executive in a trade magazine says who has something to lose.
Got it. And yet, that "believe what I see with your own eyes" approach didn't keep you from judging this movie as misandrist based on what others said about it.
regardless if the toys are flying off the shelves or if the Mattle executive is embelishing a little, this is bad reporting by Variety.
After the exec said the toys were selling above expectations, the first question asked should have been "what were the expectations and what are the early sales figures?" If the exec does not give that info, you don't publish this.
Sales reports articles without numbers are worthless.
Comments
Bill Murray will never appear in another Ghostbusters sequel. Mark my words.
I did quite like it tho. A lot more then I expected I would. Chris Hemsworth was really funny. Couldn't take my eyes of Kate McKinnon. Melissa McCarthy is quite annoying in general. I don't relate it at all to the originals, it's its own thing and that's fine with me. I rate it below the originals, but it never was gonna be as good for me. Still fun tho.
It got beat by a cartoon in week one and a 2nd Star Trek reboot sequel in week two.
Sure there will probably be more Ghostbusters but with increasingly dimishing returns.
As for the film itself? From what I hear, every male character in this movie is either inept, a creep, or the butt of a joke. Sounds a bit misandrist to me. Chris Hemsworth is the vacuous eye candy, Andy Garcia as the Mayor of NY is a pompous and incompetent buffoon, and the villain is a disaffected loser who lashes out at the world because it won't validate him so he turns into a giant version of the movie's logo ghost and gets busted in the balls for the win...
Many reviewers say this film is entirely serviceable, but only occasionally fun and often joyless, like it was 'good enough' just to cast four women in traditionally male roles. Sounds more like pasteurized, processed, homogenized, "safe" comedy enriched with fake controversy for your consuming pleasure. Even Bill Murray wasn't funny. How is that even possible? Glad my teenage daughter had no interest. She saw 'Lights Out' instead.
Next.
I am excited about the new television show.
M
- Thor
- Avengers
- Star Trek
- Ghostbusters
- Huntsmen
- Vacation
M
If there's a sequel, it demands cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid)!
M
I would guess there will be more kids (maybe not just girls) out as Ghostbusters this Halloween than as Starfleet. But, we'll see.
Because, I've got to be honest, right now, with this kind of skepticism on a pretty straightforward report in a trade like this, you sound like those people who accuse Disney of paying off critics for positive reviews of Marvel movies.
I realize it goes against your predisposed conclusion to do so, but if you want anecdotal reports search "Ghostbuster toy sales" and see how many 'news' outlets are parroting this report despite it showing no evidence of its claims. Just saying toy sales were "better than expected" could simply mean "expectations were pretty low" and when the toys are on clearance before the film even comes out, I'm guessing expectations were indeed quite low. The lack of secondary market demand indicates this to be the case.
Your mileage may vary.
Here are week #2 at the box office for comparisons...
At the end of the day, I am predisposed to believe that an exec at Mattel- that is the source, not the filmmakers or movie studio- would not risk their relationship with Variety and credibility overall by claiming that one of their licensed products had strong early sales, and that was also quoted. Not just exceeding expectations-- if that was not the case. There is too little for Mattel to gain to run the risk of embarrassing themselves if the retailers refuted the claim.
If you want to believe otherwise, then so it goes.
After the exec said the toys were selling above expectations, the first question asked should have been "what were the expectations and what are the early sales figures?" If the exec does not give that info, you don't publish this.
Sales reports articles without numbers are worthless.